Prospects for Format Change Presidential Debates

The calm before the storm of the presidential election season is always one of uncertainty. That uncertainty carries on even until Election Day apparently considering the below fifty percent turnout rates every year. The electorate emerges on one fateful day to elect the next leader of the country. But how does one arrive at the decision of who to punch their chad for? The factors that go through a voters mind are many, but the decision must ultimately emerge in black or white without a shade of gray. Politicians and election strategists spend countless days preparing for every conceivable thing that their candidate could do to win an extra vote or two. Whether it be to coopt an opponent's stance to steal votes all the way down to wearing a more festive tie, these candidates attempt to leave nothing up to chance. But there is one arena outside of the stump speeches and pre-planned interviews where the gloves come as close to off as the candidates will allow them to: The presidential debates. These debates become borderline paradoxical in that the candidates want to leave nothing to chance so that they don't destroy all the credibility they have while at the same time wanting to have an open forum for questioning that is, ideally, supposed to step outside of stump speeches. The debates literally let gloves come as close to off as the candidates will allow them to. They dictate the terms of the debates down to the last detail seemingly. They choose who moderates, what questions are asked, and even whether or not they should sit down or not. All of these pre- negotiated terms are ones that are meant to protect the candidates from something going wrong that could damage them in the race for the White House. But while these candidates seek to protect themselves form harm they also want to prevent them from being labeled as soft and unable to defend themselves so they have to put of some form of debate, even if it is ultimately a façade. But when the lights and cameras fill the studio in the city where debates are held, it is very difficult to protect the candidates from something catastrophic. As stated above, the way that the parties attempt to control the debates to make the risk low is by dictating everything before the debate such as questions and moderators et cetera. But over the years, this control has cost the country priceless amounts of education as well as vital information about the candidate in terms of their ability to think on their feet. While this dictator style control over the format has been historically essential to get the candidates to come to the debate in the first place, it has consequently formented a need for a fundamental change in the format and the way that presidents conduct debates in order to enhance not only voter learning but also prove which candidate is able to think on their feet.

Though changes to the format are largely met with much resistance, there is a format that is not only revolutionary but also historically feasible. Back in 1963, debates were held between Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy. But this debate was not held in the normal fashion. Not only were these debates not mediated by a moderator but the two candidates went so far as to agree to campaign together. They would fly on the same plane to a number of cities and hold debates where not only citizens, but policy analysts as well were able to ask pressing questions about issues that they felt were important that could not be answered simply by rehashing a lot of an old stump speech. Unfortunately, this format style ended,unfortunately, when Kennedy was, assassination (1). The discussion and continuation of this style of presidential debate was stymied as the country began to focus more on the question of the assassination. In fact, Kennedy was not the only one who died at the supposed hands of Lee Harvey Oswald. This could be categorized more than just a homicide, because that day a wonderful and promising debate format also was taken to the grave that has committed the ultimate form of manslaughter in terms of voter education and learning. This paper will focus on why this debate format should be brought back and show its relevance in this (2008) presidential debate cycle. It will discuss, at length, the specifics of the format, the advantages, the obstacles, and the prospects for such a proposal in the 2008 election year.

This proposal was initially reintroduced by Norman Ornstein in the Wall Street Journal (1). He indicates that the current presidential debates are merely "artificial exercises" that need a fundamental change. Although the moderators have been excellent, he purports, the debates avoid the pressing questions of the day on every citizens mind. And even when they do, they are isolated into short snippets of two minute answers that do not do much to fully answer the question in full. His view is shared by many who believe that this specific change should be made (3, 4). There is also no shortage of those who put forth the thesis that moderated debates moreso produce "performances" as opposed to actual debates (5). It is pointed out that these debate formats avoid the issues and simply talk about character weaknesses in each candidate rather than the issues that affect citizens lives. That is not to say that character weaknesses shouldn't or would not be discussed under this proposed debate format. They are important to know but should not the focus of the debates. Conversely, in Ornstein's view, these debates should not only be held under the prospect of not only lacking a moderator and have open questioning, but should also contain a large number of debates. After Labor day, he envisions there would be at least one debate per week in a number of cities nationwide totaling eight or more debates after Labor day. He indicates that this would allow for multiple formats suggesting the prospect of pre-debate deals to make implementation of the format easier, which will be explored later in the paper. Under the Goldwater-Kennedy format, candidates would travel together to campaign leading up to and during the debates. They would also include questioning from every possible angle. Not only would journalists be able to ask questions, but also citizens as well as policy analysts. This will allow a full breadth of questioning that covers all of the issues effectively as well as wording them in any way they want such that producing canned answers would be excessively difficult. The increased number of debates overall will allow some of these pressing questions to even be turned into the focal point of a debate or two.

But the focal point of the candidates will most likely center of the advantages of such a format for them. However the advantages are not just for the candidates but the citizen as well. This will be split into advantages for the candidates and advantages for citizens.

For the candidates, there is an obvious knee-jerk reaction to reject such a proposal, but there are many advantages to such a format for candidates that would make the transition smoother. First off, the candidate that decides to propose the debate format in the public eye will be in a win-win situation. Either s/he proposes the format and it gets vehemently rejected by the other side which would allow the candidate to use that rejection as a very offensive tool to portray the other candidate as disconnected from the public or at the very least afraid to confront the issues head on. This could become a very powerful way to gain the upper hand in a campaign because there is great risk in rejecting such a format change because the specifics of the change are things that the public would largely like to see and are also things that are very easy to spin into weak points in leadership and weak points in the category of 'being presidential" if rejected. If the candidates decides to accept under the pressure from the other campaign then the advantage is founded in the individual candidates confidence in themselves. One of the reasons the Goldwater-Kennedy debates happened the way they did is because both candidates felt that they could hold their own outside of stump speeches and scripted answers and were confident in their skills as debaters. Of course it will require a particular kind of candidate to introduce such a debate format, but the introduction of it would benefit this type of candidate even if the other party rejected it which is the assumed response. The second advantage for the candidates is held in the primaries of the presidential elections. This format change is not simply limited to the presidential debates. This format may be particularly helpful for the Democratic hopefuls this year. The party is very clearly trying to demonstrate that they are uniting the party together instead of trying to divide within their own ranks. An excellent way to display this is to campaign together like this debate proposal entails. Traveling together during the primaries, even for the Republicans, will be easy to spin into a very powerful indicator that the party is uniting regardless of the candidate that is selected.

But ultimately the body that decides which candidate is selected is the citizens. Thus it is important to highlight the advantages for the citizenry as well as the candidate. The advantages for the citizen are even more numerous than for the candidate. First of all, there is an immediate boost in ratings in terms of the number of people watching the debates. While many tune into presidential debates now, imagine the number that start watching once they learn that not only are the two opposing candidate traveling together, but also that there will be no moderator at the debate and the questions that will be asked are as good a guess as anyone. Just like some people watch NASCAR because they hope seeing a crash, it can be assumed that there would be a portion of the population that will tune in simply to see if the candidates does or says something that is detrimental to them. While this may not be the ideal way to get people to listen to debates, it may be an essential first step to getting more people involved in politics. There is a chance that people who tune in to see a meltdown will in fact be greeted by two candidates who are sharp and both making compelling points and that it will begin to change that candidates mind in terms of who they vote for or at the very least make them consider dabbling in politics a little more so they know more about the candidate. The second advantage is slightly overlayed with the first, which is voter learning. More people watching the debate increases the impetus for the citizenry to gain important knowledge about the candidates and the political process. And even the citizens that still listen to the debates simply because of the chance for a catastrophic collapse get some form of education or another. This education comes in two fundamental forms. The first comes from the fact there are so many more debates so much closer to the election. The more debates there are the more voters will be able to gather before they head to the ballot box. The second form of education comes from the lack of a moderator and the diverse amount questions that are asked. The lack of a moderator allows for any sort of question about any issue be asked meaning there will be a more diverse array of positions that will be revealed from the big to the small. Conversely, if the number of debates under this format is high as indicated by Ornstein then there is the possibility of getting a large amount of depth on one specific area if there is one whole debate set aside for a particular issue.

Though the advantages there are obvious obstacles to getting such a change made to the current debate format. The biggest concern comes in the form of candidates willingness to allow such changes to occur. Historically this has been the biggest impediment to changing the format according to Decker (2). Overcoming these challenges is tough but this format provides a unique way to overcome these impediments despites its revolutionary intentions. These challenges are far easier to overcome when the candidates are the right type. Back in the Goldwater-Kennedy debates the debate format took its form because Goldwater had a very high profile platform and that Kennedy entered into this format because he was very secure in his debating skill, that is, he felt he could think on his feet quickly and be able to fare much better than Goldwater (Glass 4). As we can see, historically this format is not impossible. If these candidates can get this format to be implemented it then there is always hope that it could return given the right circumstances. Circumstances which are not terribly difficult to come by. History repeats itself, and if at any point the opportunity presents itself we should implement such a format for presidential debates. The second reason that the obstacle of candidate reluctance to change the format can be overcome has been discussed above. If even one candidate feels that they are good enough to fare well in such a format then there is no downside to introducing it. Simply getting the idea of format change in the public eye is important to get other talking and writing about it. And the fact that it would be a win-win for that candidate, it would be very easy to get the ball rolling in such an instance. It should also be pointed out that no one is hoping for an overnight change. All of Ornstein et al's changes wont be made tomorrow and that is understandable. The goal should be to get as many small incremental changes done to the debates so that they resemble the Goldwater-Kennedy debates. The scenario could easily be played out as such: one candidate feels that they are good enough to do well in the format and holds a press conference or something of the like and introduces a proposal to change the debate format just as Ornstein or others who tout the Goldwater-Kennedy debates say it should. This is followed by a wave of political journalism that speaks of the format getting the idea of a change to the voters. This scenario gets the ball rolling on a long term series of incremental changes in not only the current debate but all debates that follow.

Although the process is long term and goal oriented, that does not mean that the time to do it is anytime far off in the future. There are many that believe that 2008 would be a great time to introduce such a format change. Glass indicates that a presidential debate that was between Obama and McCain would be the most likely to produce the type of debates this paper describes (4). He says this because he believes that both have a very mutually civil relationship with one another. Another point should be that Obama not only has a high profile campaign, like Goldwater, but also has a very strong speaking style that can be used easily to adapt to such a format, like Kennedy. This creates a unique impetus for the wholesale format change to be made by Obama or an Obama like figure in order to get this process started in the short term. That is not to say that Hillary would not also be able to get such a process started. But that the prospect of Hillary traveling with the Republican campaign on the same plane may be more difficult to imagine in Glass' eyes.

Everyone should realize that the only thing that prevents a lot of productive changes in debate formats is the reluctance of the candidates themselves, not a lack of a want for fundamental change. There is obviously some pressuring that has to occur in order to get candidates to participate. But that pressure should not be so hard as to get the candidates to stop participating in debates all together. It will require a delicate balance of showing the candidates the carrots involved in changing such a format, or in fact, only getting one of them to buy into enough to introduce it to get the word out and revive this deceased debate format. Whether this debate format takes decades to implement is besides the point; there are obviously very big advantages for citizens from implementing such a format and there is a empirical historical evidence that such a format is possible. The candidates are also not left out of such an indeavor, there is a built in advantage for those who take the initiative to start the process rolling. The obstacles are many, but the persistence of such a format in the public eye can change all of that and get a large amount of public pressure on candidates to accept such change. It has been pointed out that this effort can in no way be rushed because of the fragile nature by which debates happen in the first place amid heated pre-debate negotiations that make sure that large catastrophes do not occur as a result of an odd or pointed question that the candidate cannot quickly respond to with something from their stump speech or even take a few seconds before beginning their answers. But under certain circumstances it is possible, a circumstance that is not far gone by any stretch of the imagination. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, this format will bring with an enormous amount of good. Reviving this format would greatly increase voter learning and education as well as get more involved in politics to begin with. This revolutionary format can be brought about incrementally so as to reduce resistance by candidates and make the process smoother. Ultimately, this format would to wonders in getting candidates to answer the pressing issues and give the voter what they want.

Work Cited

1. Ornstein, N. J. (2007). Moderation in Excess. Wall Street Journal.

2. Decker, W. (1981). League of Women Voter: Sponsorship, Promotion, and the Definition of Public Debate.

3. Let's Debate the Debates: Scripted format should give way to spontaneity [Editorial]. (2007, April 23). The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:mGoH-o6mw74J:www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-debates_23edi.ART.State.Edition1.42dab21.html+%22kennedy-goldwater%22+debates&hl

4. Glass, A. (2008, March 4). A Friendly Contest Between Senators. Politico. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8831.html

5. Prentice, D., Larsen, J., & Sobnosky, M. (1981). The Carter-Reagan Debate: A Comparison of Clash in the Dual Format. . Retrieved April 21, 2008